America joins Canada?

Lately I have been seriously contemplating whether America should join Canada as opposed to vice versa. Or at the very least that historical Canadian values should play some role in and inform the national ethos and ideals of such a union. I note like the author below that Canada was in many ways historically speaking founded on a more genuinely conservative view of society than America was. America was founded on Lockean liberalism after all. Canada did a much better job at balancing the interests of and achieving coexistence between the two founding ethnogroups unlike America where the process of the various regions living alongside each other has been much messier to the point of a bloody civil war even. Of course the Cultural Marxist revolution of the 1960s swept away what remained of tradition and heritage in both countries but I think that the British North American emphasis on order and the common good had much that is worth salvaging and recovering in any future American-Canadian Union. What do you guys think?

We may begin our investigation of this order at the very foundation of Canadian sovereignty: the Crown. This is fitting, because there is no element of Canadian society more illiberal, more un-progressive, and more inherently reactionary than the monarchy. The principle of a sovereign who was born to power and holds her place without election or democratic input is a slap in the face to everything liberalism holds dear. That she rules by Christian oath is a further rebuke to the secularist and post-Christian order which has established itself across the West. A common criticism of monarchy from the Right is that Her Majesty has done little, if anything, to stop the tides of chaos. Some might say her actions have even furthered them. Of course, criticism of the sovereign’s (in)actions may well be valid. But the fact remains that her position is reactionary not merely in action, but in principle. Were the Queen to become a Leninist tomorrow, this would remain the case.

Of course, it must be clarified that Canada’s official self-definition is that it is a constitutional monarchy. The Canadian constitution extends back to the Magna Carta, imposed on King John by his nobles (a further nod to the idea that Canada is the more conservative nation – it has a much older political tradition to conserve). But the monarchy is an institution, whereas “constitutional monarchy” describes a power relationship. As a result, one must distinguish between those who defend the institution versus those who defend the power relationship...

A more subtle rejection of liberalism inherent in the Canadian heritage is the historical focus on the rights of nations and peoples as opposed to individuals. This recognition forms a core part of George Grant’s thesis that Canada represents a more authentic conservative order than the American Republic. This also led him to take a position rather unusual for a Canadian conservative: sympathy for Quebec nationalism and the defence of its distinct culture as a “Franco-American civilization”. Unlike most Quebec nationalists, he realized that liberalism represented perhaps an even greater danger than English Canadian hegemony...

The Canadian position on ethnocultural rights and privileges presents a challenge to the liberal idea of the sovereign individual. Against the homogeneous blank-slate who bears “universal human rights”, Canada defended the social (and indeed, religious) human person whose formation depends on rooted and distinct cultures and ways of life...

To conclude, we have examined three elements of Canadian political society which are incompatible with liberalism in its various American forms. The institution of the Monarchy is a rejection of the idea that sovereignty lies in the people. The Canadian Monarch in particular swears coronation oaths which stem from the age of Christendom rather than that of liberalism. In addition, the people themselves are not conceived of existing as sovereign blank slates. Rather, the liberal tradition of individualistic human rights exists at best in tension with a heritage of national and cultural particularism which governing powers must take into account. Finally, the notion of government has not until recent decades been viewed as being fundamentally undesirable. Government’s task is to be competent rather than “big” or “small”. At times this is achieved through respecting ordered liberties, at others it requires dynamic action.

These currents continue to exist in Canada to this day. To examine and embrace them once again must lead one to a core of principles which exist beyond the scope of the liberal world: concepts such as peoples, civilizations, hierarchies, telos, and a freedom which depends on both internal and external order rather than the unbridled passions of omnium contra omens.

The truth is like a lion, you don't have to defend it. Let it loose, it will defend itself. - St. Augustine of Hippo

Oakvale wrote:I think the problem with the U.S. joining Canada is that by doing that, there wouldn't really be a Canada anymore. Canada probably would change and become more U.S. American.

You are probably right about that, the sheer size of the U.S. population compared to Canada would mean that a future hypothetical American entry into Canadian confederation is completely American dominated. Perhaps a better alternative would be the incorporation of what is good in historical Canadian principles together with what is good in American principles into the basic law of a United North America. Both countries have ideals worth preserving. America has limited government, the Second Amendment and tenth amendment federalism. Canada treasures the protection of the common good, the rights of nations and communities, safeguards against mob rule and the preservation of historical tradition in the form of the monarchy. I think both of these sets of principles could come together to make us stronger as we become one nation.

The truth is like a lion, you don't have to defend it. Let it loose, it will defend itself. - St. Augustine of Hippo

Oakvale wrote:I think the problem with the U.S. joining Canada is that by doing that, there wouldn't really be a Canada anymore. Canada probably would change and become more U.S. American.

You are probably right about that, the sheer size of the U.S. population compared to Canada would mean that a future hypothetical American entry into Canadian confederation is completely American dominated. Perhaps a better alternative would be the incorporation of what is good in historical Canadian principles together with what is good in American principles into the basic law of a United North America. Both countries have ideals worth preserving. America has limited government, the Second Amendment and tenth amendment federalism. Canada treasures the protection of the common good, the rights of nations and communities, safeguards against mob rule and the preservation of historical tradition in the form of the monarchy. I think both of these sets of principles could come together to make us stronger as we become one nation.

Absolutely; I generally tilt towards a more "co-operative" vision of a unified United States and Canada. There are plenty of good ideas in both law, culture, science, education, etc. that Canada can share with the U.S. and vice versa.

Of course, for example, Canada doesn't have to drop their gun laws - states can have restrictive ones if they so chose - (I know this personally due to living in a state that does have harsh laws in that regard).

Oakvale wrote:Absolutely; I generally tilt towards a more "co-operative" vision of a unified United States and Canada. There are plenty of good ideas in both law, culture, science, education, etc. that Canada can share with the U.S. and vice versa.

Of course, for example, Canada doesn't have to drop their gun laws - states can have restrictive ones if they so chose - (I know this personally due to living in a state that does have harsh laws in that regard).

My view as well, I guess we are pretty much on the same page then. A merger of the best of both countries. I am very much a localist myself, I consider states to be laboratories of democracy for the people there to govern themselves as they see fit free from federal meddling though naturally I have my own strong preferences I wish for my state such as for a libertarian approach to the right to bear arms.

The truth is like a lion, you don't have to defend it. Let it loose, it will defend itself. - St. Augustine of Hippo

At this point in my meanderings as a legitimate nobody, I've pretty much walked off the mainstream paths when it comes to my assessment of what constitutes the best way forward in the present circumstances. I agree that both nations certainly have interesting institutional traditions that when combined together by retaining the best ones would certainly provide a more solid framework for a successful and secure united country: and many of those are identifiably Canadian. Lately however I've become quite disgruntled with the failings of both our systems at preventing usurpation by hostile islamo-humanist elements which seek nothing less than then overtaking and subjugating our nations for their own selfishly evil and demonstrably corrupt agendas.

As a result I've kind of become a proponent of something rather extreme: unconstitutional monarchy, based on judeo-christian principles of course, not some random set of values. To my credit, J.R.R. Tolkien was of the same opinion when it comes to this. As an intermediary means of confronting the various challenges effectively in these troubled times, and a way to clean slate a proper restoral of sound government. Ideally the end produce should be something that both Americanism and Canadianism have espoused in their initial forms, that is: sovereign representative confederalism. This is I think what can serve as a basis for determining what is good and what isn't from our traditions, and there are other nations that can provide their own input (such as Switzerland).

Britain leaving the EU offers us a chance to look at building such an arrangement as a counter narrative to the humanist EU. However I truly believe that the main cause of the erosion of our sovereign representative confederations has been the progressive insinuation of democratic mechanisms which have now led us into a state of such disrepair and disconnection from the self-interest of our nations as to be quite catastrophic. Hence I do qualify myself as anti-democratic, though not in the humanist sense espoused by the Eurocrats behind the EU project. To me democracy has become the main tool through which sovereign representative government is hijacked and it will not be possible for us to ever defeat Islam as long as this remains so.

Ultimately I've begun a novel thought: thinking less in terms of national identities being defined by geographic borders and locations, and more in terms of national identity being defined by collections of human beings, regardless of where they may be. In the context of the open clash between Judeo-Christendom and Islamo-Humanity now unfolding before our very eyes, I would submit that Christians need a country of their own, where they can stage a proper expression of sovereignty, in order to be able to deal with the rising existential challenges posed by our enemies. Israel is good for Jews, as they are able to articulate policies that ensure their proper dealing with challenges. We need a place in the West that can become a haven for Christians also, a place that would welcome any Westerner of christian affiliation, from which to mount our own comeback to effective expression of sovereign policies.